Posted
by
BeauHDon Thursday March 24, 2016 @07:37PM
from the threat-to-world-peace dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: The brothers behind this week's Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called "dirty bomb," an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats told NBC News on Thursday. Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher's house, according to Claude Moniquet, a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe's nuclear sector. This camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family. "The terrorist cell ... naively believed they could use him to penetrate a lab to obtain nuclear material to make a dirty bomb," Moniquet, CEO of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center privacy consultancy said. The researcher worked at a center which stored a "significant portion of the world's supply of radioisotopes," according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. These isotopes are used in hospitals and factories around the world but can also be used to make a so-called "dirty bomb" -- a device that could spread radioactive material across a wide area.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

It's the news shows that have played up the "threat" of a "dirty bomb".

If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

If you believe that that primary intention of acts of terror is to cause harm, then yes, that sounds reasonable. However, as far as I understand it, the main point of acts of terror is usually to make people irrationally afraid (cars, dogs, and swimming pools are more dangerous). For that purpose, dirty bombs and the way they've been hyped in movies and the media, as you've stated, are perfect for terror attacks.

Afraid and uncertain, if they were able to give a large number of people an increased cancer risk that could be a nagging fear for years. Not to mention leaving permanent scars, what do you think a warded off area with nuclear hazard signs will do, even if it won't harm anyone? And there's a reason the Geneva convention banned arms that are specifically designed to maim rather than kill, which terrorists obviously won't follow. It's about making it so messy and ugly as possible.

Why would you think that the area would be permanently warded off, rather than simply having the topsoil and rubble removed until a geiger counter shows an acceptable level of background radiation?

Oh no, someone covered a few blocks of a city with a material that is barely dangerous when it's spread out over a few blocks of a city. We'd better abandon that forever, or we could clean it up and laugh at how stupid a 'dirty bomb' really is.

There's a reason nobody has ever bothered with a 'dirty bomb' and it's

When the real life equivalent of a dirty bomb fell out of orbit and spread itself thinly over a chunk of Cananda (Kosmos satellite) panic didn't happen.The cleanup showed that if anything was active enough to cause immediate problems it was very easy to detect.Even "Readers Digest" had a very good story on the incident.

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

You're thinking like an engineer, not a terrorist. The objective of a terrorist is to create fear and mass panic, and in this case overreaction that ultimately leads to an invasion which they can claim is a holy war against Islam.

A bomb the press can call "nuclear" will get more press coverage and a LOT more concern and reaction than an IED. Not necessarily because of a worse effect, but because laypeople are afraid of and do not understand science. That's why MRI's are called MRI's today instead of nMRI's. That's why a movies and television shows can warn against reactors exploding, when nuclear reactors do NOT explode. A dirty bomb can scare people more, and that helps terrorists.

You've also got the possibility of a propaganda radiation murder like when Putin had that guy in the UK murdered with... I think soup? That gets a lot of coverage.

Let's be honest if terrorists started blowing up the luxury hidey holes of the rich and greedy along with those rich and greedy in attendance, things would change real fast. Where as blowing up the rest of us, just locks the status quo more firmly in place. Genuine terrorist would not target the 99%, genuine terrorists would zero in on the 1% as the decision makers. The more this bullshit drags on, the more blatantly, glaring suspicious it becomes. So somehow beyond all logic those really smart terrorists

Bin Laden was one of those "1%", an oil millionaire from a family that are still oil millionaires. The people in Saudi Arabia who were found to be funding ISIS were also part of that "1%" - more accurate to say 0.01% or far less though.Bin Laden did not want to blow up the people in the middle east who made the decisions he disagreed with by inviting the west in, he wanted to kill some of us "worthless" westerners to scare us into actions that would force the people in the middle east to kick westerners ou

They are supposed to inform and they dropped the ball, then stampeded on it to finally set it on fire. Fucking news media is now an entertainment industry. They should be teaching/showing people WHY a dirt bomb is a stupid idea in practice but no.... "omgz nukluar !!!! dirtz bombz !". Whose fault it is ? The media for not informing. I don't expect everybody to learn that stuff on their own, but the news media should not pour gasoline on it and dance around the fire.

That could provide the perfect casus belli and warrant an invasion, even in the eyes of those would could side with Daesh in the first place, by virtue of the same mechanism that makes people go nuts when they hear the words "dirty bomb"

Armed attacks in Paris, Belgium, Indonesia, etc... already provide the casus belli to the extent NATO or the UN want to respond. You think a dirty bomb would really make a difference about whether invasion would be okay in the eyes of anyone on the world stage?

We don't know how naive the terrorists are. So while a dirty bomb is unlikely it is not so unlikely that terrorists attempt to get materials for it. Keep in mind: they could use it completely different.

A bomb is probably the worst way to deliver this type of attack, because it immediately alerts everyone that an attack has taken place. The longer the contamination is allowed to spread without anyone knowing an "attack" is going on, the greater the damage and cleanup cost. In that respect I'm thankful for Hollywood and the news media's ignorance because they're sending potential terrorists barking up the wrong tree.

Everyone is getting all in a tizzy about protecting our nuclear reactors. It's our hos

Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.

The article is unclear what material they were seeking, specifically. It hints at radioisotopes that are used in medical diagnostics. These are unsuitable for use in a dirty bomb, because they tend to b

The damage done by a dirty bomb is not counted in terms of death toll but in the measures that have to be taken in order to avoid fatalities. If you have to evacuate a part of a city for a long period, the cost of that can be huge.

I'm not sure that's very naive at all. In fact, "help us your we'll kill your family" is a very powerful motivator.

I could rephrase that question into something much less convincing, "Be an accessory to murder and we might let you and your family live long enough to get blown up by the bomb you helped us make, or we kill you, still kill many people, but you die without blood on your hands." Certainly they won't explain it as I just did but someone that cares about others just as much as themselves might not be so willing to help.

I'd think that if you want to be more convincing then you'd get your radioactive material a

1) Thinking that someone could just walk out of the building with a sack of nuclear material, if only sufficient threats were made.2) Thinking that someone being threatened with "help us [or] we'll kill your family" would not be able to figure out that he and his family will be dead anyway.

3) [Naively] thinking that the small residue of radiation resulting from any kind of dirty-bomb dispersal would result in more fear than anger.

Imagine a world without irrational fear of radioactivity, where the word 'nuclear' would not ring a bell that makes the press salivate with anticipation. I'm afraid I'll have to toss in mdsolar too since 'e posts more nuke fud then solar crud these days. TEPCO has done a fine job gathering water and filtering worse contaminants to leave Tri [asahi.com]

It is naive because intelligent people know that once the job was done they and their family would be killed anyway so as to not leave anyone who could raise the alarm before the bomb was used. i.e. You are going to die anyway so you may as well fight them anyway you can because that is that only option that has a greater than zero chance of survival, even if it is a small chance it is better than certain death.

It is not true you have zero chance of survival after a dirty bomb event. In fact, you have pretty good chance to survive without any effect such an event. A dirty bomb has nothing to do with a nuclear bomb. The whole problem, if we take for granted they have the appropriate radioactive isotope in quantity in hand, is the delivery of such a bomb in order to create a large enough area with a large enough radiation intensity to be destructive. Given the means they have so far, I doubt they can do any harm gre

What is naive is to believe you can build an efficient dirty bomb with the grade of explosive they are using and the delivery means they have. How do you spread significant radioactive material over a large area? By large area, I mean something much more larger than the area damaged by the bombs they detonated in Brussels. Which isotope are they able to handle and how to do that? Being exposed to radiations doesn't kill or give cancer automagically. You need a large dose or a delivery mean that imply you wi

I think it's not conceivable that you can make a person steal radioactive material from one of the should-be most guarded structures in the world, and bring it outside under his jacket or in his bag, especially in these post-9/11 times. This could have worked in a 70s movie maybe.

Their religion says that they should drag us down to their level and then beat us with experience. Our religion says that we should ignore their petty antics for the tragic irrelevance that it is, turn the other cheek and continue to help them. Kindness is not a weakness; it heaps burning coals of shame on their heads when we are kind to them; it torments everyone we have been kind to when we are tormented.
On the other hand, the West could be an awful lot more kind. We are not anywhere close to perfect an

It's probable that we've avoided a larger impact terrorist hit because of their consistent incompetence.

But, realistically, if relations between the West and the world's radicalized Muslim population stay the same, it is likely a given a major western city will reap a dirty bomb, or worse, far too near in the future.

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective. Worse it's what we'll do to ourselves in response. The U.S. is still suffering from the security theater thrown together in the wake of the September 11 attacks which have done little to make us more safe and have only hampered our liberties.

They don't need to set off a dirty bomb. The fear and paranoia that they might is more than enough for us to destroy ourselves.

That troubling part is that as incompetent as they may be, they're still quite highly effective.

But they aren't.

You think the aim of a terrorist attack is to kill people, and to the extent that they do they're not terribly good at it (thankfully). The aim of a terrorist attack is to instill fear. The 9/11 attacks killed 3000 people - about 3 days worth of tobacco deaths in America - but it paved the way for unconstitutional laws that supposedly will help government keep that from happening again. It led us to spend a trillion dollars trying to clean up part of the middle east. Etc. These attacks tend to be quite

Fuel rods are made by welding dry pellets into steel I-Beams or similar big, heavy, structures.

Used (wet) fuel pellets are _fantastically_ _dangerous_ to handle, so much so that they have to kept wet at all times to keep them from roasting everything while they cool.

Back in the seventies my father (nuclear engineer) said he'd love to stage, and televise, a "raid" on a nuclear power facility... The _months_ necessary to get the stuff off the premises (let alone ground up into nuclear dust) would have probably lost its audience. But the "Fast As Possible" "Smallest Crew" version of the raid that the anti-nuke people were putting in movies and scare politics would be thoroughly disproved.

Even if I installed a pebble-bed reactor in your garage (and one _would_ fit), any attempt to turn it into a "dirty bomb" would fatal to the person attempting it. Someone could blow up the pebble-bed itself, but that would move a few of the "pebbles", if any, a short distance. Someone with a radiation counter and a radiation suit could then just go pick them up with tongs.

So the terrorists "want{ed} to build a dirty bomb" is about as likely to lead to that end as my personal desire to own all of Google _and_ Tesla Motors outright as a pure proprietorship.

Currently nuclear power seems to be incompatible with capitalism due to the huge initial outlay and low rate of return. Blame bankers not protesters, and if you are actually serious then push for funding enough R&D into civilian nuclear to develop something commercially viable without a government handout (or push for government handouts).Why kick the cat? As the Iraq war protests showed the protesters really have almost zero power. Economic and political donor factors (yet another downside of lettin

I, as an immigrant to the West, appreciate what I have gotten, and am still getting, and I do my best to contribute back to the society

On the other hand, I do know that there are other immigrants who not only do not appreciate what the West has offered them, they intend to disrupt, even to destroy the very society that gave them a helping hand when they need it

The one thing that I find about the Western people - mainly the Whites - are that they are being very kind, too kind some times

While that might be a good trait, it might also turn into a weakness

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

I dunno

I, as an immigrant to the West, is very very angry with those motherfuckers --- if it is up to me, those motherfuckers would be deported yesterday, every single fucking one of them

I mean, if those immigrants don't appreciate what the West has given them, they should move the fuck OUT

Stop using religion or whatever fucking excuse to carry out their despicable act

I don't care who they are, if I invite a guess into my house and that guess start to make trouble, he or she will either be thrown out, or a bullet in the head

But the, I am only an immigrant from China --- and my opinion, of course, can not represent that of the hosts - the White folks who have endless tolerance towards motherfuckers who create troubles

That's actually a grammatical error. Typically, when referring to a group of people you should only capitalize the first letter if the group identifier is itself a proper noun, like France, Japan, Asia, etc. For example, the people who live in France are collectively 'the French' and the people in Japan are collectively 'the Japanese', but unless you're describing people with the same last name, you shouldn't refer to them as 'the Blacks'.

I read a paper about 15 years ago that I will try to summarize quickly here:

If you throw out all the myriad labels we use to divide ourselves into sub-groups within our different societies; left, right, liberal, conservative, all the various religions and organizing governmental doctrines we cling to, there are really only three overarching and competing philosophies in the world today.

The terrorists are an extreme branch of Islam. They embrace an antiquated literal interpretation of the Koran. Most Muslims are not like them.

There are a huge number of Muslims in the world, and if you 'draw the line' by grouping them with the human-garbage terrorists of ISIS and Al Quida, you're pushing a lot of people who can and will be our allies over to the other side. The problems in the Islamic world won't be solved by killing them all or forcing

It would be similar to Jews or Christians following the Pentateuch (Old Testament Law). I'm not Jewish, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Talmud, which they follow today, supercedes they Pentateuch.

Islam is to Islamic terrorism as Christianity is to the KKK and abortion clinic bombers. Any sufficiently large group of people sharing a belief will have extremes, and people should not paint that entire group with the color of the extremes.

"doing the reading" of the Book of Leviticus would have Christianity and Judaism calling homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), the Book of Exodus would have people selling their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) and putting people to death for working on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2). And let's not forget about touching the skin of a dead pig making one unclean (Leviticus 11:7), which means hundreds of millions of people are fucked for just having that slice of bacon.

If Christians were in the same social and economic situation as the Muslims are right now they would behave exactly the same.

There are Christians living in the Middle East. A minority yes, but a few millions. Never heard of them becoming terrorists, maybe you can enlighten us?

Stop the excuses. Christians might react violently as well, yes. But claiming they would behave exactly the same is the exact reductionism you rail against. No, they would not. Maybe similar, maybe not, but definitely not exactly.

Islam is part of the problem. Maybe a small part, maybe a big part, that's an interesting discussion. But claiming its contribution is zero is delusional.

In my opinion Islam is utterly incompatible with ANY other culture in the long run

Hundreds of years of history says otherwise. Various troubles have been equivalent to Christian groups fighting each other but we tend to forget that because it's easier to see problems on the outside.

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on...

Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse. In no way am I an apologist for them and I find it incredibly insulting that you wish to pretend that I am. I also pity you for falling for the excuse from those pig fucking pieces of shit that their God told them to do it. How can you swallow that shit? When Manson said that shit we didn't fall for it - why should we fall for it with this bunch of killers instead?

To speak plainly Islam is not the problem here but the pig fucking evil pieces of shit that are using it as an excuse.

That just isn't the case. The religion comes first, then the violence.

You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you who just wants to be happy and live their lives. They're not. The muslims actually believe their religion. They're not like you.

This is not the end of history. We have not played the game of Civilization, reached the bottom of the ideology tech tree, unlocked "White Liberalism" and now we're just waiting for everybody else to catch up. The

Then how do you explain the hundreds of millions of people who don't act like the losers that pretend that their God told them to kill?Also trying on a different strawman for size ("You're making the common multicultural error, that deep down everyone is a tolerant liberal like you") is fucking offensive. The world is not binary.

if you are going to blame Islam then you have to tar all the abrahamic holy books with the same brush. they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people, none of those books/ideologies are innocent. All those books should be burnt as books of hatred.

Yes, but only Islam has kept to the murderous passages religiously. Christianity used to be just as evil, but if the pope called for another crusade today, people would check the calendar if it's the first of April, and if not, laugh and assume someone quoted a story from The Onion.

But if an Imam says "go and kill the heathens", some especially stupid losers actually do so.

i covered that by saying "they all have passages/god inspired events in them that can be used to justify demented actions by demented people". my point was that if some demented christians wanted to do an ISIS, they could justify it quite happily, look up god inspired genocide in the bible as an example.

"Interpretation" is used to spin away the bad stuff and try and make it look good, you should never have to do an interpretation for "good". The demented sharia law supporters use their book literally

There really aren't "interpretations" of the Koran. It's not like the bible where Jesus taught in parables and metaphors. The Koran is just a bunch of literal commands about how to take over the world. If you're not being resisted, you do it stealthful like, "we are the religion of peace" Mecca mode. If you're being resisted you do it violent-like, "Aloha Snackbar" Medina mode.

This is why you will always get violence and civil war if you let Islam into your country. They'll start out peaceful, but once they

Every single time we bring up the issue of the terrorists being of a certain faith there sure come up people apologizing for them... and as always, they will bring up "Christianity being the most evil of all and/or issue regarding the "Crusades", and so on...

Can't you guys be truthful, for just a second, folks?

TODAY the bombers are not Christians

TODAY those who are killing people in Paris, in Belgium, in Madrid, in Mumbai, in London, in New York City, in San Bernardino, are not Christians !!

Get on with REALITY, folks !

Stop apologizing for those who are carrying out the terrorist acts !!

Ok. Lets unpack this.

1) No one was apologizing for anyone, the least of which terrorists.

2) People have defended Muslims as a group, which is legit, it's a very small fraction of Muslims who are carrying out these attacks, the vast majority are horrified by them, most of the time their own families are horrified by them.

3) Of course it's Muslim extremists carrying out attacks today, but on the days when it was the IRA carrying out bombings, extremists killing abortion doctors, or Sovereign Citizens launchin

Actually, more and more, America is done with Europe. And it could be said that a lot of European nationals are ALSO just about done with "Europe". Perhaps you've heard of the Brexit Vote ? Or the Alternativ fur Deutschland movement ?
I'll also note that this conversation is occurring in English. Not German. Or Russian.

On behalf of my late grandfather, who flew 17 missions in a B-25 over Germany, you're welcome.
On behalf of my father, who served as a tank driver in the 1950s in Germany, you're we

Unfortunately for you, my friend, the countries of Europe have no will to fight. They are under attack by an enemy who wants to subjugate and convert or destroy them, and the best they can do is look at themselves and worry about what they did to deserve this, and what they can do to not offend the people trying to kill them. Europe had better get its act together or it will be destroyed by the people it thinks it is giving shelter to.

Further, just to point out the logical fallacy in your last statement, if you're choosing to deny the good the U.S has done in the past, then logically, you would have to deny all the bad they've done as well, no?

Or are you just selectively cherry-picking history to prop up an unsustainable argumentative position?

Your Fu is weak.

I won't respond further, because, let's face it, you're having your ass handed to you right now, but if you come up with something honest and worthy of response, I'm your h

I'm already explaining to my children that the day will come soon when Europe will again ask us to help clean up their mess. We did a damned good job of it 70 years ago, probably leaving Europe in better shape than it's been in for the last 2000 years. But they didn't learn their lessons. Again.

It's horrid. I look at what Europe is doing, I look at my young son, and I know in a few decades he'll be parachuting into France to save them from the Islamic hordes. It could all be avoided if the Europeans weren't so blindly naive to the fact that not everyone in the world is nice like they are, and deep down wants the same peaceful existence they do.

You truly think like an American, congratulations on your naturalization. But every Muslim isn't the problem.

You win the irony-through-hypocrisy award for the day. You blast him for painting every muslim with the same brush, while simultaneously painting 330 million Americans with the same brush.

Can't imagine why you posted this as an anonymous coward. Oh, I know exactly why - because you're a fucking asshole, but don't want your true views of being an ignorant fuck to reflect on your actual pseudonymity.

I keep thinking about saying this and I never do because I am not sure how to say it properly. There are a few political things we are a bit different about but that's okay. The gist of it is welcome to your country. It is not welcome to my country. Every time, you express your gratitude for your adopted country. Even when you are disappointed you are seemingly sincere in your appreciation.

So, it is not welcome to my country but, rather, it is welcome to your country. It is a bit late to say so but I prefe

Many of us, East Europeans that went to West Europe have similar sentiments.

During communism we [the Bulgarians] did not receive much of a propaganda against other ethnic groups with the exception of the Turkish people [for obvious historical reasons plus the fact that the Turkey was the closest NATO member to the communist countries with large and well equipped military]. In fact the communist propagated a sense of sympathy to groups that were oppressed historically [e.g. black people, which is why most of

I think that perhaps what you have not yet understood is that this kindness is part of what makes Western societies work so well.

The optimal solution is not more harshness, but to fix these people so they start contributing positively to society. I'm not a crime researcher, but I believe there's plenty of evidence that helping people fix their problems works much better long term than harsher punishments. I.e. it's cheaper, and it prevents more crimes.

We're told by our own culture that if we react in the manner we would have reacted in the past... that we are monsters. That it will stain our souls. That will become nazis... genocidal maniacs.... racists.

The danger is not that these people will destroy us... they aren't killing us fast enough. The danger is rather that there is tension building up between what we want to do and what we're told to do. This tension is a cable that is being

The trouble with this thinking is there isn't some kind of test you can issue where you'll know who the 'bad immigrants' are, which means you have to do something like this completely indiscriminately.

The problem with this? You end up alienating even MORE of that population against you. You need the 'good ones' to trust you enough to feed you the intelligence you need to stop the 'bad ones'. Booting everybody out of the country who's an immigrant from the middle east isn't an effective long term strategy.

You see, those immigrants (or descendants of immigrants) who intend to make trouble - you guys (the White folks) still tolerate them, to the extend that even after those motherfuckers kill your people, you still standing up for them, in the name of, so called 'equality', 'diversity' et cetera

Not really. We throw them in jail or deport them when we find them.

The problem is finding them, "Arab" or "Muslim" is a very poor predictor of terrorism, sure there's a bias but the vast majority of Muslim Arabs are completely peaceful, you can't really pick out the bad ones any more than you can pick out the criminals of any group.

No one is standing up for terrorists, but for the good peaceful people who happen to share an ethnicity or religion with terrorists? I'll stand up for them.

Western civilization won by being badass. We've still got the badass stuff, we just try to keep it unused. Lots of people have thought Western Civilization weak, and they tend to be found in the "losers" column if they tried to act on that. We can afford to be kind and forbearing. We can afford to be selective about who we condemn. People who see this as weakness will tend to act on that belief and lose. People who see it as kindness will tend to be absorbed by it.

You say this because you guys do not mix with them, nor understand the tenet of their culture

I grew up in a poorer neighborhood that had several neighboring groups of different immigrants, and the cheap housing I found in university was in a mostly middle eastern neighborhood. You think I didn't mix enough with them, when instead it looks to me like your characterization seems like it is completely disconnected from the reality of immigrants who cared more about making money, getting good jobs and spouses, and raising their kids to do well in school than political and religious tenets. I'm not go

That's stupid. After reading tc's pkstsim fairly certain he would do what he can to help the country that he has adopted, and that has adopted him. He wouldn't give shelter to a cyber attacker, and if he knew their identity he would report them.

...of these incidents are going to occur before someone decides it's an act of war?

We declared a "war on terror" fifteen years ago, and have not yet negotiated a peace treaty, so, yes: it's one more act of war in the ongoing war that we declared fifteen years ago.

But when it's not a country doing the attack, uh, who do you think we should retaliate against? We're already killing terrorists, or anybody we think might be terrorists or supporting terrorists or related to terrorists, with drone strikes as fast as we can.

Well, in the US, it takes only a few nutters committing a bad crime for the country to decide it's war, because war is one of the few things that people in the United States think they understand.

Europe actually understands war, so it would require a hostile attack from a recognised country. If it helps, remember that the IRA caused more deaths and damage in Europe than ISIS could ever dream of, and the UK never really considered itself to be at war. The UK knows wh

And yet extraordinarily they were left free to carry out bombings and kill innocent civilians.

Several of the 9/11 hijackers, including the two lead planners, were on watch lists yet not only entered the U.S. under their own names, moved about the country at will. They were never stopped, including after their visas had expired and, as we know, flew on multiple flights out of Boston to test and gauge security and to plan their attack.

Sounds like Belgium and Turkey were following the lead of George Bush and ignoring the problem.

Since that was a consequence of being on perpetual vacation and having cronies that didn't take their jobs seriously, then yes you are correct.He didn't do anything fast enough apart from putting on a tailored costume designed to look like the perfect fighter pilot's uniform and stand in front of a "mission accomplished" banner.Not that I'm a fan of Clinton either (a man ruled by donations and libido), but Baby Bush managed to bring an ongoing disaster to a new level, or at least watched it happen from the

I suspect a lot of the problem was the sheer mass of intelligence involved. You hear about low-level officials that tried to sound the alarm, but the problem is that everyone passed their concerns to their boss, and every boss winnowed it down for presentation to their own boss, and as a result the signs of 9-11 that we now recognize by hindsight didn't make it to the top.

Not sure there's a solution for this. (See also the recent story on current NSA data overload.)

The failure to stop 9/11 had very little if anything to do with the sitting president at the time. It had a lot more to do with how promotions and pats on the back are distributed in the bureaucracy. The CIA was aware of and monitoring at least two of the hijackers. When the hijackers entered the USA the CIA agent in charge of watching them made a deliberate decision not to notify the FBI. That decision was made out of the fear that the FBI would get to bust them on something and hog all the glory. So inste